[jennifer]

Salmonella in PB. Mercury in Corn Syrup. Sheesh, what a mess we're making everywhere. Of course, the FDA & corn lobbyists are denying the validity of the mercury in corn syrup study...just like they're still "studying" whether or not BPA and phtalates are harmful in baby bottles and other plastic drink containers. We're pretty diligent about reading labels & not buying stuff with hf-corn syrup or hydrogenated oils. But with a 2-year old on board who wants to snack, and doesn't like anything "Amy's" or fake-Cheeze-Its (i.e. organic crackers & other organic travel-friendly snacks that we pick up for her), it gets exhausting.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/healthNews/i...lBrandChannel=0

[ExtraMSG]

Sounds like a pretty poor excuse for science on either side. Some activist says that he found detectable levels of Mercury in foods high in corn syrup. Industry group says they've changed their methods. Neither has any real evidence giving us what we actually need to know: 1) what is the specific source of the mercury? Is it corn syrup? Is it HFCS? Is it the processing equipment? 2) What is the harm/risk from these "detectable" levels of Mercury? 3) Is the Mercury still present and is there some way to determine which specific products we can trust it is likely to be present in or non likely to be present in?

HFCS is a whipping boy for activists which makes it more difficult to take them on faith when they say something alarmist about it.

[Sarah]

ExtraMSG, on Jan 27 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

Sounds like a pretty poor excuse for science on either side. Some activist says that he found detectable levels of Mercury in foods high in corn syrup. Industry group says they've changed their methods. Neither has any real evidence giving us what we actually need to know: 1) what is the specific source of the mercury? Is it corn syrup? Is it HFCS? Is it the processing equipment? 2) What is the harm/risk from these "detectable" levels of Mercury? 3) Is the Mercury still present and is there some way to determine which specific products we can trust it is likely to be present in or non likely to be present in?

HFCS is a whipping boy for activists which makes it more difficult to take them on faith when they say something alarmist about it.

This quote answers some of those questions:

"This seems like quite sensible advice, but how worried should we be about mercury in HFCS? I agree that mercury in any form is unlikely to be good, but I have no idea whether such low levels do measurable harm. For one thing, these studies did not compare the amounts of mercury found in HFCS to those typically found in foods that do not contain HFCS. My guess is that most foods contain low levels of mercury because mercury is prevalent in air, water, and soil, especially around coal-burning power plants. Also, soft drinks are the major sources of HFCS in American diets, but these were found to be relatively free of mercury. This is puzzling."

From Marion Nestle's blog, http://www.foodpolitics.com/ . Nestle, I think, is one of the sanest people on the planet. Any time I hear something alarming about food/food supply/nutrition, I head to her blog to see if she has anything to say about it.